Ted Cruz on War & Peace

Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age

Q: In the US-led air assault against ISIS, you said we ought to "bomb them back to the Stone Age." It does not appear that bombing alone is going to make that happen, that ISIS will not disappear with a US-led air assault. That being the case,
where do you see the role, if any, of US military personnel?

CRUZ: Well, unfortunately, the approach of the Obama administration to ISIS has been fundamentally unserious. We have dropped a bomb here, a missile there, but it has really been a photo
op foreign policy. What we need is a concentrated, directive military objective to take ISIS out. Now, what does that entail? A far more vigorous air campaign than we're seeing. We're dropping a fraction of the ordnance that we have in other
campaigns such as Afghanistan.

Q: Do you think it will involve US troops?

CRUZ: Well, there are over 1,500 on the ground right now. But we have a tremendous asset on the ground right now, which is the Kurds, [whom we should arm].

Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS

Q: Do you think the fight against ISIS will involve US troops?

CRUZ: Well, there are over 1,500 on the ground right now. But we have a tremendous asset on the ground right now, which is the Kurds. The Peshmerga have been strong allies of the US.
They are effective fighters. And they desperately need weaponry and assistance. And, for whatever reason, the Obama administration has been delaying aiding the Peshmerga, has been running it all through Baghdad, instead of aiding them directly, and
has been blocking them from selling oil, which doesn't make sense. And the Obama administration keeps focusing on Syrian rebels, many of whom have far too close ties to radical Islamic terrorists for it to make any sense for us to be supporting them.
The Kurds are allies and they are boots on the ground. And when we work with them in concert, they're ready to fight on the front line, along with serious airpower. If it were a military objective to take ISIS out, I think that's what we would be doing.

Bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, with Congress' approval

Q: You offered this scolding assessment of how the U.S. is confronting the threat from ISIS:

CRUZ (ON TAPE): What we ought to have is a direct concerted overwhelming air campaign to take them out.

Q (END TAPE): In Iraq and Syria?

CRUZ:
The focus should be Iraq, but the real focus should be taking out ISIS. Within Syria, it should not be our objective to try to resolve the civil war in Syria.

Q: You said that the U.S. should bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age.
Should that take Congressional approval?

CRUZ: It should absolutely take Congressional approval, I think.

Q (voice-over): But not all Republicans agree. On Friday, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida sent a letter to the White House saying the president
doesn't need Congress, he should act swiftly on his own. What advice would you give the president?

CRUZ: I think it is an urgent concern to strike while ISIS is vulnerable.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long

Both candidates agreed that the U.S. should not commit to military action in Syria, and said that while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began for noble reasons, they went on too long.
Only a bit of disagreement came when Dewhurst said the Obama administration pulled combat troops out of Iraq too soon and should have left some behind.

Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits US-based correspondent accounts or a payable-through accounts by a foreign financial institution that knowingly:

conducted or facilitated a significant transaction on behalf of the Central Bank of Iran, or another Iranian financial institution, or a person involved in the energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors of Iran

Authorizes sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Arguments for and against bill: (New York Times, May 8, 2013): Seeking to escalate pressure on Iran, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation that would deny the Iranian government access to its foreign exchange reserves, estimated to be worth as much as $100 billion. The legislation would be the first major new sanction confronting Iran since its inconclusive round of negotiations last month on its disputed nuclear program.

Sponsors of the legislation contend that Iran is not bargaining in good
faith while it continues to enrich uranium. Part of the reason, they say, is that Iran has been able to work around the worst effects of the sanctions by tapping its foreign currency reserves overseas, which are largely beyond the reach of current restrictions. "Closing the foreign currency loophole in our sanctions policy is critical in our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability," the sponsors said.

Critics said the new legislation risked further alienating Iranians who suspect that the sanctions' true purpose is not to pressure Iran in the nuclear negotiations, but to cause an economic implosion that would lead to regime change. "When we've cemented a sanctions escalation path, we're creating a trajectory toward actual confrontation," said the founder of the National Iranian American Council, a Washington group that opposes sanctions. Some Iranian leaders, he said, see the sanctions "as a train that can only go in one direction and has no brakes."